BACKGROUND: Massage is widely used for neck pain, but its effectiveness remains unclear.
OBJECTIVES: To assess the benefits and harms of massage compared to placebo or sham, no treatment or exercise as an adjuvant to the same co-intervention for acute to chronic persisting neck pain in adults with or without radiculopathy, including whiplash-associated disorders and cervicogenic headache.
SEARCH METHODS: We searched multiple databases (CENTRAL, MEDLINE, EMBASE, CINAHL, Index to Chiropractic Literature, trial registries) to 1 October 2023.
SELECTION CRITERIA: We included randomised controlled trials (RCTs) comparing any type of massage with sham or placebo, no treatment or wait-list, or massage as an adjuvant treatment, in adults with acute, subacute or chronic neck pain.
DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: We used the standard methodological procedures expected by Cochrane. We transformed outcomes to standardise the direction of the effect (a smaller score is better). We used a partially contextualised approach relative to identified thresholds to report the effect size as slight-small, moderate or large-substantive.
MAIN RESULTS: We included 33 studies (1994 participants analysed). Selection (82%) and detection bias (94%) were common; multiple trials had unclear allocation concealment, utilised a placebo that may not be credible and did not test whether blinding to the placebo was effective. Massage was compared with placebo (n = 10) or no treatment (n = 8), or assessed as an adjuvant to the same co-treatment (n = 15). The trials studied adults aged 18 to 70 years, 70% female, with mean pain severity of 51.8 (standard deviation (SD) 14.1) on a visual analogue scale (0 to 100). Neck pain was subacute-chronic and classified as non-specific neck pain (85%, including n = 1 whiplash), radiculopathy (6%) or cervicogenic headache (9%). Trials were conducted in outpatient settings in Asia (n = 11), America (n = 5), Africa (n = 1), Europe (n = 12) and the Middle East (n = 4). Trials received research funding (15%) from research institutes. We report the main results for the comparison of massage versus placebo. Low-certainty evidence indicates that massage probably results in little to no difference in pain, function-disability and health-related quality of life when compared against a placebo for subacute-chronic neck pain at up to 12 weeks follow-up. It may slightly improve participant-reported treatment success. Subgroup analysis by dose showed a clinically important difference favouring a high dose (≥ 8 sessions over four weeks for ≥ 30 minutes duration). There is very low-certainty evidence for total adverse events. Data on patient satisfaction and serious adverse events were not available. Pain was a mean of 20.55 points with placebo and improved by 3.43 points with massage (95% confidence interval (CI) 8.16 better to 1.29 worse) on a 0 to 100 scale, where a lower score indicates less pain (8 studies, 403 participants; I2 = 39%). We downgraded the evidence to low-certainty due to indirectness; most trials in the placebo comparison used suboptimal massage doses (only single sessions). Selection, performance and detection bias were evident as multiple trials had unclear allocation concealment, utilised a placebo that may not be credible and did not test whether blinding was effective, respectively. Function-disability was a mean of 30.90 points with placebo and improved by 9.69 points with massage (95% CI 17.57 better to 1.81 better) on the Neck Disability Index 0 to 100, where a lower score indicates better function (2 studies, 68 participants; I2 = 0%). We downgraded the evidence to low-certainty due to imprecision (the wide CI represents slight to moderate benefit that does not rule in or rule out a clinically important change) and risk of selection, performance and detection biases. Participant-reported treatment success was a mean of 3.1 points with placebo and improved by 0.80 points with massage (95% CI 1.39 better to 0.21 better) on a Global Improvement 1 to 7 scale, where a lower score indicates very much improved (1 study, 54 participants). We downgraded the evidence to low-certainty due to imprecision (single study with a wide CI that does not rule in or rule out a clinically important change) and risk of performance as well as detection bias. Health-related quality of life was a mean of 43.2 points with placebo and improved by 5.30 points with massage (95% CI 8.24 better to 2.36 better) on the SF-12 (physical) 0 to 100 scale, where 0 indicates the lowest level of health (1 study, 54 participants). We downgraded the evidence once for imprecision (a single small study) and risk of performance and detection bias. We are uncertain whether massage results in increased total adverse events, such as treatment soreness, sweating or low blood pressure (RR 0.99, 95% CI 0.08 to 11.55; 2 studies, 175 participants; I2 = 77%). We downgraded the evidence to very low-certainty due to unexplained inconsistency, risk of performance and detection bias, and imprecision (the CI was extremely wide and the total number of events was very small, i.e < 200 events).
AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: The contribution of massage to the management of neck pain remains uncertain given the predominance of low-certainty evidence in this field. For subacute and chronic neck pain (closest to 12 weeks follow-up), massage may result in a little or no difference in improving pain, function-disability, health-related quality of life and participant-reported treatment success when compared to a placebo. Inadequate reporting on adverse events precluded analysis. Focused planning for larger, adequately dosed, well-designed trials is needed.
PURPOSE: To systematically evaluate the effect of exercise rehabilitation as an adjuvant to clinical treatment for myofascial trigger points (MTrPs).
PATIENTS AND METHODS: ESBCO, PubMed, Science Direct, Web of Science, China Knowledge Network (CNKI), and Wanfang databases were comprehensively searched from database inception date through July 2022. Randomized controlled trials comparing MTrPs treatments that included exercise rehabilitation with a single clinical treatment. Two researchers independently screened articles using inclusion/exclusion criteria, scored methodologic quality, and extracted data including patient demographics, interventions, and outcomes.
RESULTS: We included 14 RCTs (N = 734). Results showed short-term (mean difference [MD], -2.25; 95% confidence interval [CI], -4.08 to -0.41; Z = 2.40; P = 0.02) and long-term (MD = -0.47; 95% CI: -0.80 to -0.17; Z = 3.05; P = 0.02) adjuvant exercise rehabilitation treatments were superior in reducing musculoskeletal pain intensity to single clinical treatment in controls, but long-term versus short-term effectiveness was not significantly different. The exercise rehabilitation group more effectively increased the range of motion (ROM) (standardized mean difference [SMD], 1.04; 95% CI: 0.32 to 1.77; Z = 2.84; P = 0.005) and decreased dysfunction (SMD = -0.93; 95% CI: -1.82 to -0.05; Z = 2.06; P = 0.04) than controls; no significant difference was observed in the pressure pain threshold (PPT) between two groups.
CONCLUSION: Exercise rehabilitation as an adjuvant to clinical treatment for MTrPs was moderately effective in relieving pain intensity, increasing ROM, and improving dysfunction versus single clinical intervention. These findings must be validated by larger, higher-quality studies.
Persistent head and neck myofascial pain is among the most frequently reported pain complaints featuring major variability in treatment approaches and perception of improvement. Acupuncture is one of the least invasive complimentary modalities that can optimize conventional treatment. The aim of this review was to determine the evidence for the effectiveness of acupuncture in the management of localized persistent myofascial head and neck pain. Only randomized controlled clinical trials (RCTs) were included. The search was conducted in PubMed, Ovid Medline, Embase, Google Scholar, and Cochrane Library in addition to manual search. The main outcome measure was the comparison of the mean pain intensity score on VAS between acupuncture and sham-needling/no intervention groups. Safety data and adherence rate were also investigated. Six RCTs were identified with variable risk of bias. All included studies reported reduction in VAS pain intensity scores in the groups receiving acupuncture when compared to sham needling/no intervention. Meta-analysis, using a weighted mean difference as the effect estimate, included only 4 RCTs, revealed a 19.04 point difference in pain intensity between acupuncture and sham-needling/no intervention (95 %CI: -29.13 to -8.95). High levels of safety were demonstrated by the low rates of side effects/withdrawal. Inconsistency in reporting of outcomes was a major limitation. In conclusion, moderate-quality evidence suggests that acupuncture may be an effective and safe method in relieving persistent head and neck myofascial pain. Optimizing study designs and standardizing outcome measures are needed for future RCTs.
INTRODUCTION: Myofascial pain with myofascial triggers are common musculoskeletal complaints. Popular treatments include manual therapy, dry needling, and dry cupping. The purpose of this systematic review was to compare the efficacy of each treatment in the short-term relief of myofascial pain and myofascial trigger points.
METHODS: Search engines included Google Scholar, EBSCO Host, and PubMed. Searches were performed for each modality using the keywords myofascial pain syndrome and myofascial trigger points. The inclusion criteria included English-language, peer-reviewed journals; a diagnosis of myofascial pain syndrome or trigger points; manual therapy, dry needling, or dry cupping treatments; retrospective studies or prospective methodology; and inclusion of outcome measures.
RESULTS: Eight studies on manual therapy, twenty-three studies on dry needling, and two studies on dry cupping met the inclusion criteria. The Physiotherapy Evidence Database (PEDro) was utilized to assess the quality of all articles.
DISCUSSION: While there was a moderate number of randomized controlled trials supporting the use of manual therapy, the evidence for dry needling ranged from very low to moderate compared to control groups, sham interventions, or other treatments and there was a paucity of data on dry cupping. Limitations included unclear methodologies, high risk for bias, inadequate blinding, no control group, and small sample sizes.
CONCLUSION: While there is moderate evidence for manual therapy in myofascial pain treatment, the evidence for dry needling and cupping is not greater than placebo. Future studies should address the limitations of small sample sizes, unclear methodologies, poor blinding, and lack of control groups.
OBJECTIVES: To summarize all good quality randomized controlled trials (RCTs) using complementary and alternative medicine (CAM) interventions in patients with rheumatic diseases.
METHODS: A systematic literature review guided by the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic review and Meta-Analysis (PRISMA) was performed. We excluded non-English language articles and abstract-only publications. Due to the large number of RCTs identified, we only include "good quality" RCTs with Jadad score of five.
RESULTS: We identified 60 good quality RCTs using CAM as intervention for patients with rheumatic diseases: acupuncture (9), Ayurvedic treatment (3), homeopathic treatment (3), electricity (2), natural products (31), megavitamin therapies (8), chiropractic or osteopathic manipulation (3), and energy healing therapy (1). The studies do not seem to suggest a particular type of CAM is effective for all types for rheumatic diseases. However, some CAM interventions appear to be more effective for certain types of rheumatic diseases. Acupuncture appears to be beneficial for osteoarthritis but not rheumatoid arthritis. For the other therapeutic modalities, the evidence base either contains too few trials or contains trials with contradictory findings which preclude any definitive summary. There were only minor adverse reactions observed for CAM interventions presented.
CONCLUSION: We identified 60 good quality RCTs which were heterogenous in terms of interventions, disease, measures used to assess outcomes, and efficacy of CAM interventions. Evidence indicates that some CAM therapies may be useful for rheumatic diseases, such as acupuncture for osteoarthritis. Further research with larger sample size is required for more conclusive evidence regarding efficacy of CAM interventions.
Despite wide use in clinical practice, acupuncture remains a controversial treatment for chronic pain. Our objective was to update an individual patient data meta-analysis to determine the effect size of acupuncture for four chronic pain conditions.We searched MEDLINE and the Cochrane Central Registry of Controlled Trials randomized trials published up until December 31, 2015. We included randomized trials of acupuncture needling versus either sham acupuncture or no acupuncture control for non-specific musculoskeletal pain, osteoarthritis, chronic headache, or shoulder pain. Trials were only included if allocation concealment was unambiguously determined to be adequate. Raw data were obtained from study authors and entered into an individual patient data meta-analysis. The main outcome measures were pain and function. An additional 13 trials were identified, with data received for a total of 20,827 patients from 39 trials. Acupuncture was superior to both sham and no acupuncture control for each pain condition (all p<0.001) with differences between groups close to 0.5 standard deviations (SD) for comparison with no acupuncture control and close to 0.2 SDs in comparison with sham. We also found clear evidence that the effects of acupuncture persist over time with only a small decrease, approximately 15%, in treatment effect at one year. In secondary analyses, we found no obvious association between trial outcome and characteristics of acupuncture treatment, but effect sizes of acupuncture were associated with the type of control group, with smaller effects sizes for sham controlled trials that used a penetrating needle for sham, and for trials that had high intensity of intervention in the control arm.We conclude that acupuncture is effective for the treatment of chronic pain, with treatment effects persisting over time. While factors in addition to the specific effects of needling at correct acupuncture point locations are important contributors to the treatment effect, decreases in pain following acupuncture cannot be explained solely in terms of placebo effects. Variations in the effect size of acupuncture in different trials are driven predominately by differences in treatments received by the control group rather than by differences in the characteristics of acupuncture treatment.
PERSPECTIVE: Acupuncture is effective for the treatment of chronic musculosketal, headache and osteoarthritis pain. Treatment effects of acupuncture persist over time and cannot be explained solely in terms of placebo effects. Referral for a course of acupuncture treatment is a reasonable option for a patient with chronic pain.
There is uncertainty regarding how long the effects of acupuncture treatment persist after a course of treatment. We aimed to determine the trajectory of pain scores over time after acupuncture, using a large individual patient data set from high-quality randomized trials of acupuncture for chronic pain. The available individual patient data set included 29 trials and 17,922 patients. The chronic pain conditions included musculoskeletal pain (low back, neck, and shoulder), osteoarthritis of the knee, and headache/migraine. We used meta-analytic techniques to determine the trajectory of posttreatment pain scores. Data on longer term follow-up were available for 20 trials, including 6376 patients. In trials comparing acupuncture to no acupuncture control (wait-list, usual care, etc), effect sizes diminished by a nonsignificant 0.011 SD per 3 months (95% confidence interval: 20.014 to 0.037, P = 0.4) after treatment ended. The central estimate suggests that approximately 90% of the benefit of acupuncture relative to controls would be sustained at 12 months. For trials comparing acupuncture to sham, we observed a reduction in effect size of 0.025 SD per 3 months (95% confidence interval: 0.000-0.050, P = 0.050), suggesting approximately a 50% diminution at 12 months. The effects of a course of acupuncture treatment for patients with chronic pain do not seem to decrease importantly over 12 months. Patients can generally be reassured that treatment effects persist. Studies of the cost-effectiveness of acupuncture should take our findings into account when considering the time horizon of acupuncture effects. Further research should measure longer term outcomes of acupuncture.
The aims of this systematic review were to study the analgesic effect of real acupuncture and to explore whether sham acupuncture (SA) type is related to the estimated effect of real acupuncture for musculoskeletal pain. Five databases were searched. The outcome was pain or disability immediately (≤1 week) following an intervention. Standardized mean differences (SMDs) with 95% confidence intervals were calculated. Meta-regression was used to explore possible sources of heterogeneity. Sixty-three studies (6382 individuals) were included. Eight condition types were included. The pooled effect size was moderate for pain relief (59 trials, 4980 individuals, SMD -0.61, 95% CI -0.76 to -0.47; P < 0.001) and large for disability improvement (31 trials, 4876 individuals, -0.77, -1.05 to -0.49; P < 0.001). In a univariate meta-regression model, sham needle location and/or depth could explain most or all heterogeneities for some conditions (e.g., shoulder pain, low back pain, osteoarthritis, myofascial pain, and fibromyalgia); however, the interactions between subgroups via these covariates were not significant (P < 0.05). Our review provided low-quality evidence that real acupuncture has a moderate effect (approximate 12-point reduction on the 100-mm visual analogue scale) on musculoskeletal pain. SA type did not appear to be related to the estimated effect of real acupuncture.
BACKGROUND: Manipulation and mobilisation are commonly used to treat neck pain. This is an update of a Cochrane review first published in 2003, and previously updated in 2010.
OBJECTIVES: To assess the effects of manipulation or mobilisation alone compared wiith those of an inactive control or another active treatment on pain, function, disability, patient satisfaction, quality of life and global perceived effect in adults experiencing neck pain with or without radicular symptoms and cervicogenic headache (CGH) at immediate- to long-term follow-up. When appropriate, to assess the influence of treatment characteristics (i.e. technique, dosage), methodological quality, symptom duration and subtypes of neck disorder on treatment outcomes.
SEARCH METHODS: Review authors searched the following computerised databases to November 2014 to identify additional studies: the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), MEDLINE, EMBASE and the Cumulative Index to Nursing and Allied Health Literature (CINAHL). We also searched ClinicalTrials.gov, checked references, searched citations and contacted study authors to find relevant studies. We updated this search in June 2015, but these results have not yet been incorporated.
SELECTION CRITERIA: Randomised controlled trials (RCTs) undertaken to assess whether manipulation or mobilisation improves clinical outcomes for adults with acute/subacute/chronic neck pain.
DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Two review authors independently selected studies, abstracted data, assessed risk of bias and applied Grades of Recommendation, Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE) methods (very low, low, moderate, high quality). We calculated pooled risk ratios (RRs) and standardised mean differences (SMDs).
MAIN RESULTS: We included 51 trials (2920 participants, 18 trials of manipulation/mobilisation versus control; 34 trials of manipulation/mobilisation versus another treatment, 1 trial had two comparisons). Cervical manipulation versus inactive control: For subacute and chronic neck pain, a single manipulation (three trials, no meta-analysis, 154 participants, ranged from very low to low quality) relieved pain at immediate- but not short-term follow-up. Cervical manipulation versus another active treatment: For acute and chronic neck pain, multiple sessions of cervical manipulation (two trials, 446 participants, ranged from moderate to high quality) produced similar changes in pain, function, quality of life (QoL), global perceived effect (GPE) and patient satisfaction when compared with multiple sessions of cervical mobilisation at immediate-, short- and intermediate-term follow-up. For acute and subacute neck pain, multiple sessions of cervical manipulation were more effective than certain medications in improving pain and function at immediate- (one trial, 182 participants, moderate quality) and long-term follow-up (one trial, 181 participants, moderate quality). These findings are consistent for function at intermediate-term follow-up (one trial, 182 participants, moderate quality). For chronic CGH, multiple sessions of cervical manipulation (two trials, 125 participants, low quality) may be more effective than massage in improving pain and function at short/intermediate-term follow-up. Multiple sessions of cervical manipulation (one trial, 65 participants, very low quality) may be favoured over transcutaneous electrical nerve stimulation (TENS) for pain reduction at short-term follow-up. For acute neck pain, multiple sessions of cervical manipulation (one trial, 20 participants, very low quality) may be more effective than thoracic manipulation in improving pain and function at short/intermediate-term follow-up. Thoracic manipulation versus inactive control: Three trials (150 participants) using a single session were assessed at immediate-, short- and intermediate-term follow-up. At short-term follow-up, manipulation improved pain in participants with acute and subacute neck pain (five trials, 346 participants, moderate quality, pooled SMD -1.26, 95% confidence interval (CI) -1.86 to -0.66) and improved function (four trials, 258 participants, moderate quality, pooled SMD -1.40, 95% CI -2.24 to -0.55) in participants with acute and chronic neck pain. A funnel plot of these data suggests publication bias. These findings were consistent at intermediate follow-up for pain/function/quality of life (one trial, 111 participants, low quality). Thoracic manipulation versus another active treatment: No studies provided sufficient data for statistical analyses. A single session of thoracic manipulation (one trial, 100 participants, moderate quality) was comparable with thoracic mobilisation for pain relief at immediate-term follow-up for chronic neck pain. Mobilisation versus inactive control: Mobilisation as a stand-alone intervention (two trials, 57 participants, ranged from very low to low quality) may not reduce pain more than an inactive control. Mobilisation versus another active treatment: For acute and subacute neck pain, anterior-posterior mobilisation (one trial, 95 participants, very low quality) may favour pain reduction over rotatory or transverse mobilisations at immediate-term follow-up. For chronic CGH with temporomandibular joint (TMJ) dysfunction, multiple sessions of TMJ manual therapy (one trial, 38 participants, very low quality) may be more effective than cervical mobilisation in improving pain/function at immediate- and intermediate-term follow-up. For subacute and chronic neck pain, cervical mobilisation alone (four trials, 165 participants, ranged from low to very low quality) may not be different from ultrasound, TENS, acupuncture and massage in improving pain, function, QoL and participant satisfaction at immediate- and intermediate-term follow-up. Additionally, combining laser with manipulation may be superior to using manipulation or laser alone (one trial, 56 participants, very low quality).
AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: Although support can be found for use of thoracic manipulation versus control for neck pain, function and QoL, results for cervical manipulation and mobilisation versus control are few and diverse. Publication bias cannot be ruled out. Research designed to protect against various biases is needed. Findings suggest that manipulation and mobilisation present similar results for every outcome at immediate/short/intermediate-term follow-up. Multiple cervical manipulation sessions may provide better pain relief and functional improvement than certain medications at immediate/intermediate/long-term follow-up. Since the risk of rare but serious adverse events for manipulation exists, further high-quality research focusing on mobilisation and comparing mobilisation or manipulation versus other treatment options is needed to guide clinicians in their optimal treatment choices.
BACKGROUND: Neck pain (NP) and low back pain (LBP) are common symptoms bothering people in daily life. Traditional Chinese medicine (TCM) has been used to treat various symptoms and diseases in China and has been demonstrated to be effective. The objective of the present study was to review and analyze the existing data about pain and disability in TCM treatments for NP and LBP.
METHODS: Studies were identified by a comprehensive search of databases, such as MEDLINE, EMBASE, and Cochrane Library, up to September 1, 2013. A meta-analysis was performed to evaluate the efficacy and safety of TCM in managing NP and LBP.
RESULTS: Seventy five randomized controlled trials (n = 11077) were included. Almost all of the studies investigated individuals experiencing chronic NP (CNP) or chronic LBP (CLBP). We found moderate evidence that acupuncture was more effective than sham-acupuncture in reducing pain immediately post-treatment for CNP (visual analogue scale (VAS) 10 cm, mean difference (MD) = -0.58 (-0.94, -0.22), 95% confidence interval, p = 0.01), CLBP (standardized mean difference = -0.47 (-0.77, -0.17), p = 0.003), and acute LBP (VAS 10 cm, MD = -0.99 (-1.24, -0.73), p< 0.001). Cupping could be more effective than waitlist in VAS (100 mm) (MD = -19.10 (-27.61, -10.58), p < 0. 001) for CNP or medications (e.g. NSAID) for CLBP (MD = -5.4 (-8.9, -0.19), p = 0.003). No serious or life-threatening adverse effects were found.
CONCLUSIONS: Acupuncture, acupressure, and cupping could be efficacious in treating the pain and disability associated with CNP or CLBP in the immediate term. Gua sha, tai chi, qigong, and Chinese manipulation showed fair effects, but we were unable to draw any definite conclusions, and further research is still needed. The efficacy of tuina and moxibustion is unknown because no direct evidence was obtained. These TCM modalities are relatively safe.
Massage is widely used for neck pain, but its effectiveness remains unclear.
OBJECTIVES:
To assess the benefits and harms of massage compared to placebo or sham, no treatment or exercise as an adjuvant to the same co-intervention for acute to chronic persisting neck pain in adults with or without radiculopathy, including whiplash-associated disorders and cervicogenic headache.
SEARCH METHODS:
We searched multiple databases (CENTRAL, MEDLINE, EMBASE, CINAHL, Index to Chiropractic Literature, trial registries) to 1 October 2023.
SELECTION CRITERIA:
We included randomised controlled trials (RCTs) comparing any type of massage with sham or placebo, no treatment or wait-list, or massage as an adjuvant treatment, in adults with acute, subacute or chronic neck pain.
DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS:
We used the standard methodological procedures expected by Cochrane. We transformed outcomes to standardise the direction of the effect (a smaller score is better). We used a partially contextualised approach relative to identified thresholds to report the effect size as slight-small, moderate or large-substantive.
MAIN RESULTS:
We included 33 studies (1994 participants analysed). Selection (82%) and detection bias (94%) were common; multiple trials had unclear allocation concealment, utilised a placebo that may not be credible and did not test whether blinding to the placebo was effective. Massage was compared with placebo (n = 10) or no treatment (n = 8), or assessed as an adjuvant to the same co-treatment (n = 15). The trials studied adults aged 18 to 70 years, 70% female, with mean pain severity of 51.8 (standard deviation (SD) 14.1) on a visual analogue scale (0 to 100). Neck pain was subacute-chronic and classified as non-specific neck pain (85%, including n = 1 whiplash), radiculopathy (6%) or cervicogenic headache (9%). Trials were conducted in outpatient settings in Asia (n = 11), America (n = 5), Africa (n = 1), Europe (n = 12) and the Middle East (n = 4). Trials received research funding (15%) from research institutes. We report the main results for the comparison of massage versus placebo. Low-certainty evidence indicates that massage probably results in little to no difference in pain, function-disability and health-related quality of life when compared against a placebo for subacute-chronic neck pain at up to 12 weeks follow-up. It may slightly improve participant-reported treatment success. Subgroup analysis by dose showed a clinically important difference favouring a high dose (≥ 8 sessions over four weeks for ≥ 30 minutes duration). There is very low-certainty evidence for total adverse events. Data on patient satisfaction and serious adverse events were not available. Pain was a mean of 20.55 points with placebo and improved by 3.43 points with massage (95% confidence interval (CI) 8.16 better to 1.29 worse) on a 0 to 100 scale, where a lower score indicates less pain (8 studies, 403 participants; I2 = 39%). We downgraded the evidence to low-certainty due to indirectness; most trials in the placebo comparison used suboptimal massage doses (only single sessions). Selection, performance and detection bias were evident as multiple trials had unclear allocation concealment, utilised a placebo that may not be credible and did not test whether blinding was effective, respectively. Function-disability was a mean of 30.90 points with placebo and improved by 9.69 points with massage (95% CI 17.57 better to 1.81 better) on the Neck Disability Index 0 to 100, where a lower score indicates better function (2 studies, 68 participants; I2 = 0%). We downgraded the evidence to low-certainty due to imprecision (the wide CI represents slight to moderate benefit that does not rule in or rule out a clinically important change) and risk of selection, performance and detection biases. Participant-reported treatment success was a mean of 3.1 points with placebo and improved by 0.80 points with massage (95% CI 1.39 better to 0.21 better) on a Global Improvement 1 to 7 scale, where a lower score indicates very much improved (1 study, 54 participants). We downgraded the evidence to low-certainty due to imprecision (single study with a wide CI that does not rule in or rule out a clinically important change) and risk of performance as well as detection bias. Health-related quality of life was a mean of 43.2 points with placebo and improved by 5.30 points with massage (95% CI 8.24 better to 2.36 better) on the SF-12 (physical) 0 to 100 scale, where 0 indicates the lowest level of health (1 study, 54 participants). We downgraded the evidence once for imprecision (a single small study) and risk of performance and detection bias. We are uncertain whether massage results in increased total adverse events, such as treatment soreness, sweating or low blood pressure (RR 0.99, 95% CI 0.08 to 11.55; 2 studies, 175 participants; I2 = 77%). We downgraded the evidence to very low-certainty due to unexplained inconsistency, risk of performance and detection bias, and imprecision (the CI was extremely wide and the total number of events was very small, i.e < 200 events).
AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS:
The contribution of massage to the management of neck pain remains uncertain given the predominance of low-certainty evidence in this field. For subacute and chronic neck pain (closest to 12 weeks follow-up), massage may result in a little or no difference in improving pain, function-disability, health-related quality of life and participant-reported treatment success when compared to a placebo. Inadequate reporting on adverse events precluded analysis. Focused planning for larger, adequately dosed, well-designed trials is needed.
